Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Manfred Staudinger wrote:
Its available in most modern browsers, it has no known security issues, it This is only partially so. But instead of this discussion, I tried to move it upwards a little to show the pros and cons of either. What I want to compare is: PI + JS transformations vs. JS transformations There is no use in that, because PI+JS vs JS == PI. By comparing PI vs JS alone, one can decide to either combine the techniques or not. On the PROS side for PI (partially copied from Manfred): - less security problems than with Javascript, - overall easier to implement - easy to understand and follow - no javascript needed to get it working On the CONS side for PI - can be a bit hard to setup the non-standard PI instruction for one browser and the standard PI instruction with correct IANA mimetypes for the other, if you bother at all for this (other browsers allow the IE-only erroneous declaration) - cannot serve the xml as text/xml anymore, IE expects text/html (perhaps others?) or it shows the content. - no way to pass in parameters - heavy load when used to fill IFrames (each IFrame is internally a new browser window), which makes it not ideal to build a page out of tiles or snippets. Of course, if you can without client side transformations, it is even better. -- Abel
|
